Another managerial change at Manchester United would be unlikely to solve the problems that continue to plague the club. With Michael Carrick under severe pressure following a winless run stretching to eight games, culminating in Sunday’s 3-0 Premier League home defeat to Bournemouth, the familiar questions surrounding the direction of the club have returned.
However, while Carrick’s position may be increasingly precarious, a far more important question must be asked: when will the people responsible for Manchester United’s footballing decisions be held accountable for their own failures?
Chief executive Omar Berrada and director of football Jason Wilcox cannot continually oversee a succession of questionable decisions without facing serious scrutiny themselves. Managers are ultimately judged on results, but those responsible for appointing them, defining their roles and determining the club’s footballing strategy must also be judged on the consequences of their decisions.
Since the current leadership structure took shape, United have handed Erik ten Hag a new contract before dismissing him just months later. They subsequently appointed Ruben Amorim from Sporting Lisbon mid-season, committing significant compensation to bring the Portuguese to Old Trafford, only to part company with him less than 18 months later.
Carrick was then brought in as interim manager before being handed the permanent position. Now, only months into his permanent appointment, the former United midfielder finds himself facing the prospect of dismissal.
Three managerial decisions, three separate attempts to find a solution, and yet United remain mired in instability.
At what point does the responsibility shift from the man in the dugout to those making the appointments?
There is no suggestion that managers should be immune from criticism. Carrick must be judged on performances and results, just as Ten Hag and Amorim were before him. But it is fundamentally inconsistent for a club to demand immediate results from its managers while failing to demonstrate comparable accountability among the executives responsible for constructing the footballing operation.
If Carrick’s appointment proves unsuccessful, Berrada and Wilcox must explain why they believed he was the right person for the permanent role. If Amorim’s departure was necessary after such a substantial investment, questions must be asked about the process that led to his appointment in the first place. And if the decision to renew Ten Hag’s contract was correct at the time, what changed so dramatically in the months that followed?
These are not simply questions about individual managers. They concern the judgement, planning and decision-making of the club’s leadership.
Manchester United cannot keep treating managerial dismissals as isolated incidents when they form part of a wider pattern. Every appointment carries financial costs, disrupts recruitment planning, influences the squad’s development and potentially forces another tactical or philosophical reset. Those consequences do not disappear when a manager is shown the door.
Indeed, repeatedly dismissing managers can become an admission that the people appointing them have failed to establish a coherent strategy in the first place.
Chief executive Berrada has set himself an ambitious target. In September 2024, he outlined ‘Project 150’, a vision to mark Manchester United’s 150th anniversary in 2028 by winning both the men’s and women’s league titles.
It was a bold statement from a club whose identity has long been tied to competing for the biggest prizes. The club’s global leads to conversations as to the club’s future all around the world, stretching as far as the Japanese prediction market, global apps and fansites.
However, as the end of 2026 approaches, the ambition that originally earned that global profile appears increasingly detached from the reality on the pitch.
With less than two years remaining, supporters deserve more than another declaration of intent. They deserve measurable progress, a credible plan and evidence that those responsible for delivering it understand what has gone wrong.
Berrada has effectively invited supporters to judge the leadership against the 2028 objective. That commitment must carry consequences. If the club is not progressing towards those targets, an honest assessment of the leadership’s performance is required rather than another change of manager designed to deflect attention.
The uncertainty extends beyond the first team. Plans for a potential new stadium have entered the conversation, with a masterplan shared in 2025, but a definitive commitment has yet to emerge. Infrastructure investment could be important for United’s future, but ambitious stadium proposals mean little to supporters if the footballing operation remains directionless.
For a fanbase that has long opposed the Glazer family’s ownership, the situation represents another chapter in a frustrating history.
The Glazers’ leveraged takeover in 2005 saddled the Premier League club with hundreds of millions of pounds in debt and created lasting resentment among supporters who believe United’s resources should be invested in its footballing future. Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s minority investment in 2024 offered hope of a more professional and accountable approach to running the club.
Yet the changes to the footballing hierarchy and the repeated managerial upheaval have done little to establish the sense of stability supporters were promised.
Manchester United need better performances, smarter recruitment and a coherent long-term strategy. But they also need a culture in which accountability applies at every level, from the manager to the boardroom.
If Carrick is dismissed, his successor will inherit the same institution, the same expectations and many of the same structural challenges. Unless the executives overseeing the rebuild are replaced or those current in situ can demonstrate that they have learned from their previous decisions, there is little reason to believe the outcome will be different.
Until that changes, another managerial appointment will offer little more than temporary hope.